tv Glenn Beck FOX News February 27, 2010 2:00am-3:00am EST
got that? we'll see you monday night. o'reilly factor is next. good night from washington, d. [ applause ] >> glenn: hello, america. how are you? we are so glad that you're here. we have a studio audience in new york because this is the one thing i remember going to school and the teacher would come in and say okay, time for a pop quiz! ahhh, crap! i was never ready. this one you don't have to study for. this is a pop quiz. i invite you to get a pencil and paper. and follow along. ask yourself the questions that i'm asking the studio audience, before we had the audience sit down, we gave them this quiz. it's actually part of a chart, i'll show you here in a second. it's to figure out who you are. how many people do you know that say they're progressive?
and they don't really even know what that means? i didn't know the difference -- you know, what, ten years ago? you started looking and say okay, well, the republicans, they're for smaller government and lower taxes. and the liberals are on the other side, the democrats on the other side. now it's kind of complex, because now liberals are no longer liberals, they're now progressives. what is the difference between liberal and a progressive? well, we have to find out who we are in we are going to solve anything so we can be honest with ourselves. let me show you the difference between the choices that you'll have to make. i ask you to, i ask you here to figure out an answer, which one are you? are you a liberal, conservative, libertarian or progressive? my guess is that most americans are libertarian. wait until the end of the show before you say that's ridiculous! because there are two kind of
libertarian. liberal libertarian and conservative libertarian. but this are not progressive libertarian. why? because these two are diametrically opposed to each other. 10 y 100 years ago, those two were diametrically opposed to each other. in the old days, when i was a kid -- actually in the 1800s and in europe it still is. liberal means something entirely different. the classic liberal is really more of libertarian. somebody for absolute individual rights and for the smallest government possible. but progressives came in the turn of last century and everybody started saying yeah, i'm a progressive. remember, the difference between a marxist and a progressive is what? it is the difference between revolution and evolution. they're both for massive total government.
marxist do it through revolution, progressive due it through evolution. piece-by-piece, bit-by-bit, they eat at the constitution. that's what it was designed to do. progress past the united states constitution, because it's outdated. all right. so you can't be a classic liberal and progressive. progressives came into power and everybody said this is great. we're going to be -- this is a country of progress. then all of a sudden they started to say wait a minute, you've given us income tax and the fed, and prohibition and given us world war i and now you're trying to give us a global government through league of nations. it only took four years before the americans said i'm not a progressive, i'm not a progressive. kind of like what america is going through now. progressives change the name of liberal, change the meaning. they folded themselves into this. and by doing this, they took away anybody who believed in small government. because they were
progressivives a the republican and progressives as democrats. nobody believed until 1971, nobody believed or they didn't have a place at the table for very limited government. the table was -- the chairs were taken away from the table that our founders were all sitting in. all of them were for smaller government. varying in size, but individual rights, smallest possible government. progressives took it away from the table. until a guy named nolan in 1971 was sitting in his living room and he came up, he came up with a chart. do we have it on the other side of this? this is where we're going. we're going to ask you questions today. have pencil and paper yet? we have paper. we have some questions for you. and you answer these questions. you'll find them on the internet. we'll show you at glennbeck.com. right this on the front if you want to do it, take the quiz during the show. you take the quiz at glennbeck.com. link is there on the front
page. 1971, david nolan comes up with libertarianism. and this chart. libertarianism, conservative, liberal, van jones, total government. most people say they're right here. i'll tell you at the end of the show where i ended up. hitler, stalin, mousalini, anybody that wants total government ends up right here. people who want to hug the trees, but no government, but no government involvement end up right here. hug the trees, and total government involvement, ends up here. i guess don't worry about anything. you're a conservative, don't worry about any government doing anything up here. as a conservative. but you also want to save babies with abortion here.
you want to force everybody to make sure they're going to your church. you would be right down here or in this area but on this side of it. no government, anarchy is really up here. most americans are really i think right around here. now, let's get to it. we had our audience -- judge, by the way, judge andrew napolitano is with eme. do i have it right? >> you have it exactly right. i would argue that the advent of libertarians was barry goldwater in '64 in this country, and david nolan as you said in '71 in england. >> glenn: okay. would you agree that most people are libertarian in their thought process? >> yes. when you ask them would you rather live your heif as you want to live it or would you rather the government told you how to live it, almost everybody answers yes to the first question. >> glenn: okay. go on the questions here. take it at home. the quiz is at glennbeck.com. go to the first question.
we're going to start with what is it? second amendment and guns. second amendment and guns. here is your first option. the second amendment only applies to militias, national guard and no specific protection is afforded to individuals, the government should decide how guns should be regulated. how many people said that? nobody in this audience. oh, you're all fans of the show, god bless you. [ laughter ] the next one is -- give me the next question. second amendment protects the right to bear arms, government regulation of guns is a violation of the second amendment. the right to self-defense is meaningless without the means to defend yourself. who checked that when you were taking the test? i generally support the right to bear arms. government should regulate arms via registration requirements and other regulations is the next one.
who said that? regina, why did you say that? >> i got stuck on registration arms, so for the safety of more people they should know where the guns are. >> glenn: okay. anybody else? is that what everybody was thinking? anybody who voted for that. judge, what is the problem with that? >> the problem is that the first thing that tyrants have done when they have staken over governments is to -- taken over government is confiscate guns from people. if people have to register their guns then the tyrants know where to go to get them. that is the reason that the framers who weren't interested in hunting, they were interested in making sure another king didn't show up. >> glenn: hunting but not for sport. they were hungry. people had to shoot it, didn't go get the styrofoam package at freezer at the store. >> but they didn't write that second amendment for hunting. they wrote it that the people could make sure no king showed up again.
>> glenn: if you don't have any registration at although, to regina's point, how would you know where the bad guys are? let anybody have a gun? anybody can have anything? >> what is technological possible to defend themselves. self-defense is a natural right. government can't interfere with a natural right unless they violate someone else's. >> glenn: the argument will be, the argument will be -- if you are going after -- you can defend yourself with a resolver. >> right. >> glenn: now can edefend yourself with a shotgun. if you go against the government, if this is for the government, they have tanks and airplanes and machine guns. you are not going to be able to defend yourself anyway. >> if the choice is between arms and armaments with which to defend yourself and repel a tyrant, and submissive to the government so that they know every weapon you have, can come and confiscate it, i would trust the right to
defend myself by any means available, as opposed to the other extreme of the government knowing where my guns are. >> glenn: yes. lisa? >> what if a crime is committed, they find a weapon buried or in a forest or something and have to trace that weapon to find who it was registered to so they have a suspect to follow? without regulation -- >> that is making it easier for the police to do their job. but it's not making it safer for you. you can repel the bad guy a lot faster than you can dial 911. >> glenn: here is the problem and where people have gotten stuck. nobody thinks that america is -- people believe that freedom is the norm. that we will always be free and man has always been free and we never worry about our government going bad because it's the norm. if you look at history, freedom is a freak. if you look at the whole timeline of human history, and you put the whole
timeline across for human history, the time that people have been free, this is the end of the world, this is the beginning of the world. freedom would probably be about that much. where man has truly been free. agree? >> i do agree. >> glenn: we are in that space. we say it's been 200 years. but yes, think of the dark ages. think of the tyrant throughout all of human history. this is really -- i mean one of the phrases that really comes to mind lately is ronald reagan. and ronald reagan saying if we lose freedom here, this is the last bastian of freedom, where is the world going to go? i had a guy in my office from new zealand. he was doing research. i said you're from new zealand, why do you care about this? he looked at me and said because if you fall,
everything falls. if the united states is gone, china rushes in and they take the south pacific. it totally changes if we fall. so we're looking at a brief period of time. every time we give up some of our rights and look at that and say we give them a little bit, what are you are doing weighing in the balance do i believe our freedom is going to last? do i believe it's secure? we've all grown up feeling secure, didn't we? how many of us believed five years ago the things about our freedom that we believe now. how many said five years ago we could lose our freedom in a heartbeat? john did. why, john? >> i've been talking about some of the stuff you talk on your show since 1992. i used to read a paper called "the federalist" that -- it's not a bootleg paper but
militias at the time which are now the tea parties. militias were considered taboo. bad people. they weren't. they were talking about some of the things talked an about now. >> glenn: okay. >> some of the publications out used to talk about all this stuff. >> glenn: are you a militia member now? >> no. i used to be accused of it, though. >> glenn: okay. who now wants to rethink second amendment and guns when you hear militias believe these things? that is what we are talking about. you have to balance, do you not, judge? that is what people do. who is the bad guy, the militias or the government? >> the founders used the word "militia" in the second amendment to recognize militias, group of individuals, private individuals who knew how to use their weapons would be there to repel tyrants trying to take our freedom. >> glenn: you know who the first militia member was? anybody know this?
who? [ inaudible ] who? [ inaudible ] i'd go here. >> oh. >> glenn: ben franklin tried to get the congress to act and said, "the british are coming, the british are coming." he said please, no, nothing is going to happen. he went door-to-door to neighbors and said they won't do anything. the wrong is congress isn't goi do anything and the british will come and run us over. c'mon! he took people to the square and he drilled them. it was ben franklin, that's what they meant by militia. not our reserves now. they did mean individuals that would stand up when the bad guys would come to town. let's see. go to the next two on the second amendment and guns. generally support the right to bear arms. the government should regulate arms via registration requirements and other regulations is the next
choice. then gun control is essential. and must be strengthened if gun violence in the country is to be eliminated. this one drives me nuts. the stat in england when they banned guns and took them away, gun violence went up. this is the argument of bad guys get the guns. does anybody take the last two, anybody here? good for you. you get gold stars! here is the next one. speech and property rights. the government shouldn't restrict speech. media, or the internet. rights of free citizens who don't violate other rights must be protected. private property should be protected at all times. who said yes to this? this one is important. we're facing both of these things. we're facing private property should be protected at all times. right now there are several people, several cases all
around the country where the government is just going in and taking private property because of taxes. because they say we can make more money if we with, you know, if we take this property and give it to a hotel chain or something like that. property rights. the second, restrict free speech, media or the internet. the rights must be protected. what does that mean, judge? >> you have to right to say, think as you wish, say what you think and publish what you say and the government has the obligation to protect that right. even if the government doesn't like it, even if it hate what is you say, even if it fears what you say. it has the obligation to protect your right to say it. >> glenn: what about people like me that say things like this about van jones? >> he would take away your right to speak. you would uphold his right to speak. >> glenn: the next is speech
assembly, press and expect should be free except to protect public safety. free speech zones can be established to protect the right of free speech while ensuring security at public events. who said yes to this? becky, how come? >> i was thinking more on the -- as related to the last question, terrorism. i don't know how to behave, i don't know how it would look to be completely free and yet still protect our country from terrorism. >> can i tell you what a free speech zone is? the united states of america is free speech. that's what the first amendment tells us. >> glenn: free speech zones if you don't know what it is. say the president is going to give a speech and here he is here, and he is going to be -- of course, his teleprompter is on each side. he is over here. the free speech zone is a block away with everybody standing over here. why is that a problem, judge?
>> well, speech is ineffective if it can't be heard by the target of the speech, number one. number two, it's the government deciding where you can stand and when you can speak. the first amendment says individuals make those decisions. >> glenn: do i have a right, if i'm the president of the united states to say i'm just trying to give a speech here, they should stand outside, they should be some place else? we've seen it with republicans and democrats. if you just said, everybody if you disagree, be here. you'd never have the president give a speech. >> the owner of the building has the right to stop people from interfering with his speech. but nobody has the right to say you can't be inside this building. >> glenn: in other words, if he's giving a speech at the white house, we can all go and disrupt it? >> i wish we could, but we can't. >> glenn: the next one is speech assembly, press, the internet should be free except when legitimate public policies would be undermined,
property rights should be subject to needs of the government. this is when we try to go to progressiveville. anybody? government should regulate speech, media, internet and property rights at the own discretion within reason is the last choice. again, taking a quiz today. you can find out -- you can take it yourself can and find out where you are on this chart. you can take it at glennbeck.com. the idea is if you are going to be a progressive, that's okay. i vehemently disagree with you, but that's okay. but don't say you are a progressive because i like, like, like, i like progress. that's the worst answer i've ever heard. be what matches your answers? we'll give you that here in a second.
is the right move and what is happening in the world and look at it as a giant puzzle, if you will. the first thing we have to do is find out who we are. if you are going to figure out who you are, you have to figure out what do you believe, what is important to you? i remember, i used to be, believe it or not, a liberal. i don't think i was ever a progressive, but i used to be a social liberal and everything else. i was a fiscal conservative. then i discovered alcoholism. and discovered a.a., and sobered up. the only way i knew i could stay sober is if i figured out what i really believe. many, this is me. many of the things i believe, that i was liberal on, was only because i, you know, i didn't want to make the tough choices. i didn't want to be consistent. that was my real problem. i was never consistent on anything. unless we're consistent, i
don't think we can solve any problem. so two are you? no judgment. are you liberal, are you conservative, are you libertarian, or are you progressive? do you even know what progressive means? there is a quiz on the front page of glennbeck.com. just go to the website and take the quiz and find out where you fall. and then see if all of your views match those views. was anybody surprised on the -- the studio audience here today took a quiz. was anybody surprised on where they ended up? you were. lisa, what did you think you were? >> i went in knowing that i was libertarian. just absolutely knowing it straight down on the line and i clicked on results button and found out i was my parents, conservative. >> glenn: conservative? >> yeah. >> glenn: really. that means -- judge, help me out. if you're conservative, between these two,
libertarian and conservative, you really, you want some regulation in your life. for instance, you think that should you regulate any drugs? you believe you should regulate drugs. heroin shouldn't be -- right. how about something that is not quite so nasty? how about pharmaceuticals like anti-biotics, should they be regulated? >> yes. >> glenn: how about coca-cola? >> no. >> glenn: coca-cola originally that was the first case that the f.d.a., theodore r pos roosevelt, set u the f.d.a. progressive idea is to control everything. progressive idea is to go and regulate everything and they wanted to take care of everybody, because they just don't know. they started with coca-cola. had a court case and said coca-cola has cocaine in it. well, they had a test by the government, found out there
was no cocaine in it. it wasn't addictive that way, although it's simply delicious. then the government lost the court case and ca came back and said that's fraud! how are you selling something with no coke in it? they took that and it led to prohibition. a slippery slope. that's the case you would make. >> that is the argument i would make because we're seated in the middle of new york city where the mayor wants to regulate sugar, and salt. so if you accept the argument that the government knows best, there is no end to what the government will try and keep from us. >> glenn: let me go to -- if i can, pull up national i.d. card. can we go there? pull the national i.d. card quiz. a couple minutes. national i.d. card, there should be no national i.d. card required. national i.d. would end all privacy in this country. why would that be true? >> it's absolutely un-american that the police could stop you and say show me your papers.
the right to travel and think and express yourself requires breathing room. it doesn't permit uniformty. >> we need a national ay i.d. card to prevent terror event but shouldn't go to far into personal privacy. who said yes to this? look at this. the hand goes up. how come? >> i thought maybe it would be a good idea that we identify people. there is a lot of illegals in the country and a system, they go to hospitals -- >> here is the thing. first of all, nobody should be high about -- i don't, i really don't care. if you are a progressive, you're a progressive, it doesn't matter. there is no right answer. i'm not saying you're a progressive. i'm not accusing you of that. what i'm saying is there is no right. the point of this is what are you? who are you? we're 300 million-plus in america. we're going to be all of these things. that is okay.
just know who you are so you can defend it. you say we have illegals here, et cetera, et cetera. judge, it's always the slippery slope that they always, that progressive will always they's crazy. >> the argument that this wonderful young lady is accepting presumes that the card system would work. if she is concerned about illegals, a piece of paper in their pockets is not going to prevent them from being here. piece of paper in everybody else's pocket that the government requires to us carry will limit our privacy, will limit our ability to express ourselves and limit our ability to travel. >> glenn: devil's advocate. what are you afraid of? what are you afraid of? so they have an i.d. card? you have something to hide? >> i'm afraid of losing my dignity, self-respect, rugged individualism at the core of americanism. can you any of anything more un-american than police stopping you saying where are you coming from, where are you going to and show me your
papers? >> glenn: we changed as a country. there are so many lucy-goosesy facts on the show today. so many things changed. i think it was hoover. forgive me if i'm wrong on this. i think it was hoover. it was down south and he sent in their fema, sent in the feds and said we have to help them. this is 11928-29s, and americans put down what they were doing. i think it was a flood. and they melt the troops at -- met the troops at the town border and said turn your butt around around and ge. we don't need your here. you have no right to be here. look how now we stand with signs on roofs saying, "help me, help me." now we stop looking to each
other. it was grover cleveland i think that actually said no to a farm subsidy. farmers in texas were wiped out. he said we have to take $10,000 of federal money. this is what the congress said. $10,000 of federal money and buy seeds and send it to texas so they can replant thep cros. grover cleveland said no. he vetoed it. both houses. can you imagine somebody doing that? the hate monger that he is. he said i trust the american people. the people, the neighbors in texas will help these people. the neighbors in texas actually raised ten times the amount for the seeds than the government did. somewhere along the line we have lost our will to help each other out. and we now walk -- you see it in new york city. we walk by and say why doesn't somebody fix this? we'll be right back in a second.
we have to have arguments with people now who are really based in something real. don't say you're a progressive, because i like progress, like it's cool. don't say you're a -- i don't know why you would say you're a conservative at this point. it just want to be called a racist hate monger. are you a libertarian? i contend most people are libertarian, because they want that freedom themselves, but then they start to get trapped in well, that's a good point. or even worse, well, i could get free stuff for me. this isn't about us. this is about our children. and passing something on. an we have become a society where we just want stuff. is that really where we're headed? is that, is that who you are? let's look at some of the questions the you' that you wil
in the quiz if you go to glennbeck.com. corporate welfare. the government must ensure everyone has food, clothing and shelter and should also invest in private industry if it's in the public interest. can i tell you something, this is almost -- correct me if i'm wrong, judge -- the theodore roosevelt. chad is shaking his head. this is the beginning of the progressive movement. second is end corporate welfare, no government hand-outs to business. [ applause [ applause ] government involvement is necessary. the next one government involvement is necessary where private industry can't do the job all by itself, such as in agriculture. wow, we have always been the bread basket. now we've been bassed -- i try to remember what country passed us as the world's bread basket. we are no longer the agricultural center for the world.
last is corporate welfare should be eliminated for big business, but the social safety net for individuals should be retained. did anybody go for this one? i love this audience. next, we go to healthcare. healthcare regulation is the main cause of rising costs. regulation has denied people of treatment, resource and made the cost of creating new treatments out of control, the government should stay out. this week everybody has been talking about healthcare. anybody who talks to their doctor just about all the paperwork and regulation and i mean i love the problem with people say that costs are just out of control. you know who sets the cost? everything is a percentage according to medicaid. the government sets the original cost. the next one healthcare costs are rising due to lawsuits and caps on suits should be in place.
reduced regulation would save money, the rising cost of healthcare is mostly the fault of big government and lobbyists. who said this? who did this one? yeah, a lot of people. judge, i have an attorney who works for me, one of my chief researchers. and he worked at the supreme court, clerked for the supreme court and everything else. we argue on this one all the time. it say it's you damn attorneys. he says you guys, what, somebody cuts off your feet, you don't want to sue them? stop with the cutting off of the feet! make the argument here. that attorneys aren't a big part of the problem. you nets when we talk about healthcare reform, i haven't heard a peep out of a single attorney. they're like shh, not looking at us. be quiet. >> there is a nuance with tort reform. 99% of lawsuit against doctors and healthcare providers are in state court systems. the states are sovereign. they run their own court systems. the congress cannot tell new
jersey or texas or utah an or maine or florida how to run their court systems. the states can reform themselves from within like texas and mississippi did. they used to be the most desirable places for plaintiffs lawyers to go and they're now least desirable. the change comes from within or we trample the rights of the states. >> glenn: good. government should make healthcare universally accessible. is healthcare not universally accessible? is it not accessible? james, can you walk into a hospital without even identification? james, will they help you out? >> absolutely. >> glenn: yeah. it doesn't matter. i'm having a really, really expensive involved ha heart condition and they will take care of you. >> we don't have right to refuse. we have to. >> glenn: are you in the industry? >> nurse. >> glenn: the last one is private enterprise fails to deliver healthcare to all.
government should fix the problem. okay. government is the problem. and here is the next category. taxes, spending and the debt. there should be no limits placed on the ability of government to raise sufficient revenue to do all the jobs government should be doing. let me go back to -- judge, make this case here. corporate welfare, let's see, there was one here. government involvement is necessary if private industry cannot do the job themselves. they use agriculture in this. what about the feds? >> the government buys defense items from the defense industry, because it needs those items with which to defend the property. the government doesn't produce anything. the government just consumes, but there are certain legitimate items that the government has to buy. the police have to have what they need and soldiers have to have what they need. it's not subsidizing an industry, giving it money not to produce.
that's what the agrisulchural subsidiaries are. >> glenn: what about this. no limit to raise the revenue to do the jobs the government should be doing. the key is the jobs they should be doing. >> correct. there must be a limit on what government can take from us. at some point, taxation is theft. >> glenn: i want to go here when we come back. tea parties, people say the people go to tea parties are anti-government. i want to pick it up there. anti-government. next.....
trust me, you will lose weight. get back in the game with nutrisystem for men. order now and you can get two weeks of meals free. that's 70 meals absolutely free, plus the all-new nutrisystem jumpstart kit, designed to put you on the fast track to awesome weight loss. hey, get back in the game like i did. i did...go...all...the...way, whoop! i lost 50 pounds with nutrisystem for men. get off your butt and try it. nutrisystem worked for me, and it can work for you, too. order now and you can get two weeks of meals free, plus the all-new nutrisystem jumpstart kit, designed to put you on the fast track to awesome weight loss. call or click now. don't make me come looking for you.
>> glenn: we were just talking in the break i'm convinced we have a way out of our mess. but we have to understand our mess. and we also have to understand our role in it. and we have to know who we are and then be consistent in our life. and stand up for the popular or unpopular things no matter how uncomfortable it is, you have to stand up for what you believe in. how many here are anti-government? i've been seeing lately in the press that the tea party movement and people who are saying lower taxes, lower spending are just anti-government. can anybody tell me the difference between anti-government and pro-very limited government? anybody want to take that on? anti-government and where you are. matthew? >> anti-government is afor an i can and that's december --
anarchy, that's destruction. pro-very limited government is doing what the constitution laid out for the federal government to do. >> glenn: right. each state, if the federal government for instance does -- a lot of people know this. it's fascinating. read samuels adams, great book and he was a big religious guy. he influenced the constitution with john hancock. i'm thinking the big signature guy, janua john hanco in massachusetts. if you read the constitution, did they not have a state religion in massachusetts? >> yes, they did. >> glenn: wait, how did they have a state religion? >> because there was no, there was no federal objection to a state religion. the constitution banned a national religion. >> glenn: yes. so if you want to be progressive in california, be progressive. if you want to have the big huge lumbering giant, do it. it doesn't matter.
but give us some space where we can have real freedom, limited government. it is the difference between -- look, i don't think the people in california object to texans. they do, of course they. do object to them having limited government. texans think californians are crazy. californians think texans are crazy. but that's the way our federal government was set up. let everybody be themselves. >> as reagan said you can vote with your feet. >> glenn: exactly right. if this fails, if california fails, they can always move to texas. if texas fails, t they can move to kansas. if america fails, where does the world go? back in a second.
taxes, spending and the debt. it gives me hope because i believe americans will do the tough thing. this is not a pretty future for america, at least in the turnover. here it is. cut taxes and government spend i spending by 50% or more, which will positively impact the economy. the national debt must be paid down rather than endlessly increased. [ applause ] let me ask you this -- how many of you were positively impact the economy. how many understand that we turn the valves off? and the world changes? how many understand that we are talking in a flip over, talking about a reset of the system. they're propping it up now bogusly. are you willing to live like our grandparents did in the great depression?
really think of this before you raise your hand. live like our grandparents did to be able to pass freedom to your children. if you are, raise your hand. i think america is changing. i don't think the politicians understand that. i don't think they have the spine to come to you and say guys, the whole thing is unsustainable. the secret here cut taxes. if you went to a significant global -- a significant tax rate, i don't mean someone crazy cutting you would have the money from the rest of the world. reference wednesday's show if you still have it on tivo. this is the answer. it's tough but most americans will do it. back in a second. ooo
>> bret: america, thank you for watching. please go to the website at glennbeck.com. >> bret: find out w . then try to make sure everything in your life is consistent. don't go for the hype and politician stuff. then read history. this is a good starting point. read history. consume as much as you can. from new york, good night, from new york, good night, america.